SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Rusney or no Rusney? CBT is the issue
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 30, 2017 18:40:03 GMT -5
Easy to forget about Castillo's age and injury issues. Maybe a team selects him in Rule 5 knowing that they can return him to the Red Sox at any time and just be on the hook for his prorated salary. My understanding is that if he's selected in the rule 5 draft and then when/if he is offered back for 50k, the Red Sox don't need to take him back - is that correct? (I can't think of a time this has happened off hand) I would assume that if he is taken and the team who drafts him decides they don't want him, he would have to be playing poorly enough that the Red Sox wouldn't want him either.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 30, 2017 20:50:22 GMT -5
Two points about Castillo: Cora has been a big advocate for Castillo.Rusney played for Cora's winter league and on multiple occasions the new Sox skipper proclaimed him mlb ready. A second point is that he only costs $4M more than young and provides a tremendous upgrade over Young. These seems like great points. But it's also worth mentioning that Brentz played for Cora in the winter--it's in that great PJ article with lots of former players talking in very specific terms about how great Cora is. www.providencejournal.com/sports/20171028/former-teammates-players-speak-glowingly-of-alex-cora-as-manager
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 31, 2017 7:49:28 GMT -5
Easy to forget about Castillo's age and injury issues. Maybe a team selects him in Rule 5 knowing that they can return him to the Red Sox at any time and just be on the hook for his prorated salary. My understanding is that if he's selected in the rule 5 draft and then when/if he is offered back for 50k, the Red Sox don't need to take him back - is that correct? (I can't think of a time this has happened off hand) I would assume that if he is taken and the team who drafts him decides they don't want him, he would have to be playing poorly enough that the Red Sox wouldn't want him either. Good point. Refusing to accept a returned player happens so rarely I forgot it was an option, but yeah, a team can do that.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 31, 2017 10:42:25 GMT -5
My understanding is that if he's selected in the rule 5 draft and then when/if he is offered back for 50k, the Red Sox don't need to take him back - is that correct? (I can't think of a time this has happened off hand) I would assume that if he is taken and the team who drafts him decides they don't want him, he would have to be playing poorly enough that the Red Sox wouldn't want him either. Good point. Refusing to accept a returned player happens so rarely I forgot it was an option, but yeah, a team can do that. But I also don't see why the Red Sox wouldn't take him back for nothing. He doesn't come back on the 40-man roster.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 31, 2017 10:45:15 GMT -5
Good point. Refusing to accept a returned player happens so rarely I forgot it was an option, but yeah, a team can do that. But I also don't see why the Red Sox wouldn't take him back for nothing. He doesn't come back on the 40-man roster. If they don't think he's good enough then I'm sure Henry & Co would love not to have to pay him $30 million more over the next three years.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 31, 2017 11:03:37 GMT -5
But I also don't see why the Red Sox wouldn't take him back for nothing. He doesn't come back on the 40-man roster. If they don't think he's good enough then I'm sure Henry & Co would love not to have to pay him $30 million more over the next three years. Fair point. I guess I'd forgotten, but this is a big part of why I don't think it's a slam dunk he gets taken in Rule 5 if left unprotected, unlike some others here (mostly thinking of Eric). It's not like it's a free look without any downside - it's quite possible the selecting team gets left holding the bag if Rusney turns back into a pumpkin (Halloween sorta-reference intended).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 3, 2017 8:50:18 GMT -5
If they don't think he's good enough then I'm sure Henry & Co would love not to have to pay him $30 million more over the next three years. Fair point. I guess I'd forgotten, but this is a big part of why I don't think it's a slam dunk he gets taken in Rule 5 if left unprotected, unlike some others here (mostly thinking of Eric). It's not like it's a free look without any downside - it's quite possible the selecting team gets left holding the bag if Rusney turns back into a pumpkin (Halloween sorta-reference intended). Yeah, if I knew that the original team could decline to take him back, I was forgetting it. So it's not a slam dunk. Furthermore, CF is actually a very deep position now, with a lot of natural CFers playing in the corners, as there's a serious shortage of bat-first guys and teams value defense so much. CF was the best position in MLB at a total 7 runs above average (offensive and defensively), while LF was the worst at -3. Looking at the clubs with the worst OFs last year ... 1) Giants (-86 runs). Inane, insane salary commitments, so not a good fit. 2) Blue Jays (-51). They have rookie Anthony Alford to replace the defensively inadequate Steve Pearce in LF, but no one short or long term to replace Bautista in RF. And they have very little in the way of salary commitments (especially since they're likely to trade Josh Donaldson since they have an elite replacement in Vlad Guerrero, Jr.). Great fit. 3) Braves (-41). A lot of that is Matt Kemp's LF defense and some of it is Nick Markakis's mediocrity in RF; they're on board for 2 and 1 more year respectively. They have only Acuna in the pipeline, so they need a LF for their contention window, but not now. Not a great fit. 4) Royals (-29). If they can't re-sign Cain -- and it looks like Hosmer is their #1 priority -- they're in serious need, since he was +30 and they have no one to replace him in the short term. Another great fit. There may well be other good fits. Of course he's a gamble, but he's a solid gamble. He seems to be a guy who would command a 3/$45M deal in free agency whom you can get at 3/$35.5M. Now, from the Sox point of view ... They can have trade discussions now to gauge interest. Castillo has only a little positive trade value, so there's no reason to be coy with us. If there's no trade interest, they don't select him, very likely no one takes him in the draft, and maybe he has an even better year next year. If someone surprises them and takes him in the draft and keeps him, you're rid of the salary and you're out the possible trade return, which is a bit of a loss but not one you lose sleep over. (This is also what probably happens if there's only one interested team, and they correctly guess that they're the lone suitor.) If he's offered back, it's essentially a choice of signing him at his current salary, and there's no reason to screw that up. The bad scenario is where they select him and then no one wants him in a trade. The smartest thing to do would be to trade him now. If you can't trade him, you don't select him. That's the strategy dictated by the fact that you likely can't afford the luxury of his AAV against the CBT limit.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 3, 2017 9:26:12 GMT -5
Man, the Giants salary commitments are indeed pretty stupid, but they have a huge, gaping hole in the outfield, particularly defensively. Even if Castillo is only a 1.0 WAR player he's something around a $10 to $15 million upgrade for them. And unlike most of the other teams that were awful in 2017, they are a team that could contend if things break right - several players (Crawford, Moore, maybe Samardzija) are great candidates for bouncing back. And they have Pence and Span coming off the books after 2018. If there's any room in the budget at all, they should consider Castillo, either in a trade or the Rule 5.
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Nov 3, 2017 9:57:38 GMT -5
I think it would be in the best interest of the team to trade Castillo. The combination of his salary and the fact that they have at the very least adequate replacements between Lin, Brentz, and maybe even Barfield. I’m not sure what they could get in return for Castillo, but what do you value more? The insurance he provides as a fourth or fifth outfielder?
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 3, 2017 10:34:41 GMT -5
Good points but I believe that Castillo is the far superior outfielder....and perhaps hitter too....if 2017 was not a fluke and if Cora's judgment is impeccable.
If we trade JBJ....bets are off. In that case, Castillo stays and Brentz gets the 4th position. Even if we don't, I like Castillo to stay as a roving outfielder to give our guys more rest during the season. I'll bet that will be a coming trend and, if so, 'not having to make do' will be important. B/t inevitable injuries, resting players, pitching matchups and even possible games at DH, he could play 70-80 games.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 3, 2017 11:13:59 GMT -5
Next year, if you prorate it out to a full season, Castillo's projected production might be worth his $11M salary. But he's yet to put up 500 PAs in any of his three full seasons and he turns 31 in July. I don't see any team signing up to commit to not just next year but the following two years at $11M and $13.5M. In my mind, no chance in hell he'd come close to 3/$45M if he were a free agent. Last year, Josh Reddick, a clearly superior player with a much longer track record, got just 4/$52M, and Colby Rasmus, a comparable player (though he was coming off a much worse season), got 1/$5M. If he were a free agent, I'd guess that he gets something like one year, $7M.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 3, 2017 16:38:01 GMT -5
Next year, if you prorate it out to a full season, Castillo's projected production might be worth his $11M salary. But he's yet to put up 500 PAs in any of his three full seasons and he turns 31 in July. I don't see any team signing up to commit to not just next year but the following two years at $11M and $13.5M. In my mind, no chance in hell he'd come close to 3/$45M if he were a free agent. Last year, Josh Reddick, a clearly superior player with a much longer track record, got just 4/$52M, and Colby Rasmus, a comparable player (though he was coming off a much worse season), got 1/$5M. If he were a free agent, I'd guess that he gets something like one year, $7M. I would make him available for Rule 5 and hope someone takes him. If he was a tradable asset I think he would've been traded this year. For his own sake, he'll get a chance to play at the MLB level in that scenario, too.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 3, 2017 16:49:28 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox are better off keeping Castillo rather than just letting him go in the rule 5. Letting him go in the rule 5 is some kind of thing the Mets or Marlins would do. The Red Sox should be using their financial advantage wherever possible and this is one of those times. If they have an internal hard cap that won't let him play in the majors, I'd still keep in AAA for emergency depth. There is no possible way to replace that quality of depth in AAA unless they trade for some prospect who is nearly major league ready, but those trades almost never happen. I mean what do the Red Sox gain by getting rid of the contract right now? The only person who gains is John Henry. The team would gain nothing.
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on Nov 3, 2017 16:57:32 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm not even sure why Castillo was pushed out of MLB in the first place. It seems the only players he was competing with for OF time from 2015-16 were Hanley, Holt, and Victorino. And Swihart.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 3, 2017 17:50:33 GMT -5
Next year, if you prorate it out to a full season, Castillo's projected production might be worth his $11M salary. But he's yet to put up 500 PAs in any of his three full seasons and he turns 31 in July. I don't see any team signing up to commit to not just next year but the following two years at $11M and $13.5M. In my mind, no chance in hell he'd come close to 3/$45M if he were a free agent. Last year, Josh Reddick, a clearly superior player with a much longer track record, got just 4/$52M, and Colby Rasmus, a comparable player (though he was coming off a much worse season), got 1/$5M. If he were a free agent, I'd guess that he gets something like one year, $7M. To clarify, the 3/$45M was meant to be the figure he'd be getting if he were a veteran FA who'd been playing at the level of his 2017 MLEs. However, by that logic Reddick would have indeed gotten more than he did. I don't know where the $8M per win figure (that I'm using without questioning) comes from if there were enough guys like him. And, thank God, I'm going to resist the temptation to look into it! (Even though I used to love to build cool regression models of FA salaries.) You are, however, underestimating just how good Castillo was last year. Both BP and Clay Davenport have his CF defense as +11 R/150. Reddick's never been that good. Davenport has his MLE EqA as .269, basically average for a starting CF (all CF is .267 these days). It's worth noting that when we signed Castillo, the scouting consensus was that he was a 2.0 - 2.5 WAR player and that the deal was fair if that were the case. I don't why that would have changed all that much, since he now appears to be that guy or even better (those numbers work out to 3.0 WAR or so). I do agree that he had little positive trade value, but I think a few teams would be willing to take him and his salary on for the usual salary-dump prospect return. Bid them against each other and you could get someone interesting rather than an org guy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 3, 2017 17:55:04 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm not even sure why Castillo was pushed out of MLB in the first place. It seems the only players he was competing with for OF time from 2015-16 were Hanley, Holt, and Victorino. And Swihart. Because he's never shown the ability to hit in MLB? He looked awful in 2016 in the spring, and so they optioned him to Pawtucket. He came up a couple times but he also wasn't hitting in Pawtucket, so they outrighted him to get his money off the CBT. There's no point in paying a guy what he's making to be a bad AAA outfielder.
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on Nov 3, 2017 21:35:26 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm not even sure why Castillo was pushed out of MLB in the first place. It seems the only players he was competing with for OF time from 2015-16 were Hanley, Holt, and Victorino. And Swihart. Because he's never shown the ability to hit in MLB? He looked awful in 2016 in the spring, and so they optioned him to Pawtucket. He came up a couple times but he also wasn't hitting in Pawtucket, so they outrighted him to get his money off the CBT. There's no point in paying a guy what he's making to be a bad AAA outfielder. Well he crushed it in his 2014 cameo, then hit respectably (especially considering all the adjustments going on for him) in his 1st half season in the bigs in 2015. Hit decently in Pawtucket 2015-16, then crushed it in 2017. JBJ was given a full season to hit under the Mendoza line in the bigs, while Holt just got done with a Mendoza line half season in the middle of a playoff race. If 10 million a year is the reason he's buried in the minors, that's a shame. Because Porcello's not worth 20 million either.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 3, 2017 21:58:40 GMT -5
Castillo was awesome last year join Pawtucket at age 29. 11 walks in 369 PAs.
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on Nov 3, 2017 22:10:09 GMT -5
Castillo was awesome last year join Pawtucket at age 29. 11 walks in 369 PAs. Vlad Guerrero had 17 walks in 590 plate appearances in his final year. Still hit .290. Not always a bad thing to be a bad ball hitter. And can't really complain about his age because we signed him at 26 then dumped him in the minors.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 3, 2017 22:21:03 GMT -5
Baseball is a living organism that now much more rapidly evolves than in decades past. We have seen the elevation in importance of bullpens, the proliferation of high velocity arms across the board, the increased willingness to sub out starters (to the chagrin of traditionalists), the greater reliance on and adherence to quantifiable performance data etc. IMO a new trend will be to give all players and pitchers more rest to assure full season/post season optimum performance and reduction in fatigue related injuries. To that end, "utility" guys will take on greater importance. For top teams the historical gap b/t salaries and talent of "subs" compared with 'regulars' will shrink due to their increased relevance. Players will become more interchangeable.
Castillo can play all three outfield positions. He hit for power and average in AAA. He is an exceptional fielder. I think that he may be one of a new breed of 'super sub'.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 4, 2017 8:56:14 GMT -5
Next year, if you prorate it out to a full season, Castillo's projected production might be worth his $11M salary. But he's yet to put up 500 PAs in any of his three full seasons and he turns 31 in July. I don't see any team signing up to commit to not just next year but the following two years at $11M and $13.5M. In my mind, no chance in hell he'd come close to 3/$45M if he were a free agent. Last year, Josh Reddick, a clearly superior player with a much longer track record, got just 4/$52M, and Colby Rasmus, a comparable player (though he was coming off a much worse season), got 1/$5M. If he were a free agent, I'd guess that he gets something like one year, $7M. To clarify, the 3/$45M was meant to be the figure he'd be getting if he were a veteran FA who'd been playing at the level of his 2017 MLEs. However, by that logic Reddick would have indeed gotten more than he did. I don't know where the $8M per win figure (that I'm using without questioning) comes from if there were enough guys like him. And, thank God, I'm going to resist the temptation to look into it! (Even though I used to love to build cool regression models of FA salaries.) You are, however, underestimating just how good Castillo was last year. Both BP and Clay Davenport have his CF defense as +11 R/150. Reddick's never been that good. Davenport has his MLE EqA as .269, basically average for a starting CF (all CF is .267 these days). It's worth noting that when we signed Castillo, the scouting consensus was that he was a 2.0 - 2.5 WAR player and that the deal was fair if that were the case. I don't why that would have changed all that much, since he now appears to be that guy or even better (those numbers work out to 3.0 WAR or so). I do agree that he had little positive trade value, but I think a few teams would be willing to take him and his salary on for the usual salary-dump prospect return. Bid them against each other and you could get someone interesting rather than an org guy. You're making my point. Front offices don't trust MLEs, and at the very least they levy a hefty risk premium to account for the substantial risk inherent in projecting AAA performance to MLB. You also continue to not take into account injury (Castillo has missed substantial time in every season due to a series of minor injuries) and age (he's now in the decline phase of his career). I would be very surprised if any team was willing to take on his entire salary. He probably won't be protected in Rule 5, so we'll soon see what the teams really think.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 4, 2017 10:58:16 GMT -5
Castillo was awesome last year join Pawtucket at age 29. 11 walks in 369 PAs. Vlad Guerrero had 17 walks in 590 plate appearances in his final year. Still hit .290. Not always a bad thing to be a bad ball hitter. And can't really complain about his age because we signed him at 26 then dumped him in the minors. Guerrero retired after that .733 OPS year. From age 23-33 he averaged 59 walks a year. It's always a bad thing to walk 11 times in 369 PAs.
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on Nov 4, 2017 12:47:34 GMT -5
Vlad Guerrero had 17 walks in 590 plate appearances in his final year. Still hit .290. Not always a bad thing to be a bad ball hitter. And can't really complain about his age because we signed him at 26 then dumped him in the minors. Guerrero retired after that .733 OPS year. From age 23-33 he averaged 59 walks a year. It's always a bad thing to walk 11 times in 369 PAs. 59 walks a year for one of the most feared hitters in baseball is not a lot. That means he's a bad ball hitter, and a good one at that. But just to understand, you're saying if Rusney had walked 15 more times in 2017, then we could call his season awesome?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 4, 2017 14:45:43 GMT -5
Guerrero retired after that .733 OPS year. From age 23-33 he averaged 59 walks a year. It's always a bad thing to walk 11 times in 369 PAs. 59 walks a year for one of the most feared hitters in baseball is not a lot. That means he's a bad ball hitter, and a good one at that. But just to understand, you're saying if Rusney had walked 15 more times in 2017, then we could call his season awesome? Marvin the Martian also never missed a bugs Bunny pitch. I think he's another fair comp to a 30 yo minor leaguer.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 4, 2017 18:13:57 GMT -5
Guerrero retired after that .733 OPS year. From age 23-33 he averaged 59 walks a year. It's always a bad thing to walk 11 times in 369 PAs. 59 walks a year for one of the most feared hitters in baseball is not a lot. That means he's a bad ball hitter, and a good one at that. But just to understand, you're saying if Rusney had walked 15 more times in 2017, then we could call his season awesome? You cited Guererro's atypical, worst-by-far, final season for walks as though it made Rusney's 11 walks look less bad. It doesn't. That was a terrible argument Now you're suggesting that 11 walks is not so bad because it's only 15 less than 26? That doesn't work either.
|
|
|